find_project_items

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose useful behavior: matching is case-insensitive substring rather than exact, and the search spans all bins with no scoping. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, what the results contain (IDs, item types, ordering), or whether results are capped.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single tightly written sentence with the matching rule and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably too terse for a search tool, but nothing in it is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter search with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say what comes back and whether results are ordered or limited. It covers the matching semantics and scope well, but leaves return shape and the type filter unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 50%; the undocumented query parameter is compensated for by the description's explanation of case-insensitive substring matching. However, the type filter (with its all/clip/file/bin/sequence enum) is never mentioned in the description, so half the parameter surface is left entirely to the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (search), resource (project items), matching semantics (case-insensitive substring), and scope (across all bins), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_project_items or find_clips, which is the only gap.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: 'search by name' versus enumerating with get_project_items, and 'across all bins' hints at scope. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as find_clips.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.